Consider two of Pope Benedict XVI's most emphatic invitations during his historic visit to the UK last year.

The first was made at Bellahouston Park in Glasgow, when he spoke of evangelising our culture at a time when there is an active movement to exclude religious belief from public discourse or to privatise it in the name of equality and freedom.

"I appeal in particular to you, the lay faithful," he said, "to put the case for the promotion of faith's wisdom and vision in the public forum" - and he told us not to be afraid to take up this service.

In that same passage he also spoke of the need for "clear voices" which "propose our right to live, not in a jungle of self-destructive and arbitrary freedoms but in a society which works for the true welfare of its citizens and offers them guidance and protection in the face of their weakness and fragility."

The other moment occurred in Westminster Hall, when Pope Benedict addressed parliamentarians and civic leaders. Something happened that day in that great place which is hard to name; it was as if the message that the Pope had come to bring - a call for reason and the public square to open to faith - actually occurred, even before he arrived.

It was not just that the myth of the British nation-state as Protestant had died: after all, here was the entire British political establishment sitting waiting patiently to be addressed by the Successor of St Peter.

It was also that a new kind of a space in British public life had been opened up. It was fleeting, it was a glimpse. And you might say we've seen no more of it since then. But I came away convinced that it was real, and that, as a Church, we must help make it so.

In that Westminster Hall speech, just as in Pope Benedict's recent thrilling address to the German Bundestag, was the genesis of what I want to dare to call "a new Christian humanism" - one that breathes the insights of our faith into the national public conversation, to bolster what the Pope called "the ethical foundations of civil discourse."

In what is the most widely-quoted part of his Westminster Hall speech, Pope Benedict described the benefits of political thought and faith entering into dialogue - benefits not just for reason, but also for faith.

"This is why I would suggest that the world of reason and the world of faith - the world of secular rationality and the world of religious belief - need one another and should not be afraid to enter into a profound and ongoing dialogue, for the good of our civilisation."

This fruitful exchange - which is the direct opposite, of course, of the secularist ambition of excluding or privatising faith as an individual matter of personal belief - is the best way, the only way, of overcoming the temptations to sectarianism and fundamentalism, whether of religion or of political creeds; and it is the foundation of authentic pluralism.

Only when we as Catholics have developed a clearer understanding of what is necessary for true pluralism - namely, religious freedom, the foundation of all our other freedoms - can we make a compelling, universal contribution to the challenging questions of the moment, whether gay marriage, assisted suicide, social inequality or the violence on our streets.

For at stake in these questions is not what we, as Catholics, believe, as one group among many in society; it is about what is good for the whole of society - the Common Good. We, as Catholics, need to be part of that discernment of that common good.

Last year, when the Pope left us those precious, challenging words in Westminster Hall, they seemed prophetic. Now, a year later, they have taken on a sudden urgency, especially in the wake of the eruption of disorder in early August, which lifted in the veil on chronic unemployment, alienation, family breakdown and criminality among vast numbers of people who are poor, purposeless and angry, while the rest of Britain has enjoyed unprecedented wealth.

The riots, coming in the wake of scandals in banking, journalism and politics, have led to call for a way of "re-moralising" society with values and virtues. What we are living through is, in essence, a crisis of the liberal project. Britain's liberalism has long shown itself capable of managing and reconciling different interests.

But the respect for autonomy which is the cornerstone of this philosophy is unable to meet the very different challenge of this new time, which is essentially cultural: it is the culture on which politics, economics and society depend which has proved deficient.

The liberal project, so successful in expanding the freedom of some, often at the expense of many, has reached its limits; it cannot generate the virtues and values necessary for a healthy democracy and economy. A society will break down when progress is defined as the endless expansion of opportunities for the exercise of personal autonomy.

Who can generate sobriety, frugality, and self-restraint? Who can muster the energies for a common purpose of social regeneration? Culture needs scrutiny according to ethical criteria which are not of its own making, criteria based on a coherent philosophical overview, on universal tenets accessible to reason, that can supply its own answers to questions of human motivation and human destiny.

Answering such questions has always been the business of the major faiths. The renewal of culture has to come from civil society, not the market and the state; and it was for us as Catholics among other faiths to be allowed to do so that the Pope appealed in Westminster Hall. It was a twin appeal: to the public square to open up, and to Catholics to take their place in the national conversation.

We have, after all, great gifts to share: the tremendous body of Catholic social teaching, culminating in Caritas in Veritate, and the witness and experience, here in England and Wales, of the Catholic charitable sector - especially through Caritas and Cafod; we have the Pope's own very deep thinking about religious freedom, laid out in his historic speech in January this year; and, of course, the many teaching documents of our bishops - the tradition and witness of our Church, the depth of its teaching and her institutional presence among all races and classes, which makes her the most significant actor in civil society across the world today.

As Catholics, we do not "possess" this tradition. Andrew Brown, editor of the Guardian's Comment is Free site, is a Protestant atheist; he gave many reasons in a recent piece entitled "Why I am not a Catholic." But he said:

"Catholic social teaching, and the attempts to produce an economics centred around the needs of humans, rather than of money, look like the only thought-through alternatives to unbridled market capitalism - and certainly the only ones which have a chance of widespread popular support."

It is striking, in fact, that among the most influential channels of Catholic social teaching in Britain today are non-Catholics. The Government's Big Society idea owes much to Anglican Phillip Blond's immersion in Catholic social teaching via Professor John Milbank, just as some of the most interesting new thinking in the Labour Party is the result of Lord Glasman's own insights from that same tradition.

We have all learned much from London Citizens and CitizensUK, under the leadership of Neil Jameson, a Quaker, which puts into practice the politics of civil society called for in Catholic social teaching, and in which Catholic schools and congregations here in London play a key role.

Providentially, the Catholic bishops of England and Wales are celebrating the papal visit anniversary by launching a five-year plan to help Catholics be more courageous and confident in expressing their faith. They want us to grasp that at the root of what they call a "truly human, just and free society" is the Gospel and the core moral truths about human beings - truths that respect what Pope Benedict in his address to the German Parliament described as a "human ecology."

This is an exciting and propitious time for Catholics to take their place in the public conversation - a time of crisis in the liberal project, a time of a national search for values and virtues capable of revitalising civic life. It has happened before.

As the Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks has been pointing out, this current time has great similarities to the early nineteenth century, an era of tremendous dislocation, grotesque inequality, social violence, egotism and greed - a high noon, as now, of liberal individualism.

Yet the late nineteenth century saw a rapid growth in charities, schools, associations, political campaigns - most of it driven by faith. Within a single generation, crime rates came down, social order was restored, and politics was revitalised by great moral campaigns against slavery, child labour, and so on; what has been done before can be done again.

The energy and vision then came from civil society; and the principal engine of civil society, then as now, is faith. You don't need faith to do good for others, and to contribute. But religion generates networks of participation that are deeper, more enduring and more committed than secular organisations.

If our current crisis has exposed the absence of a vigorous civil society as the root of our problems, then faith needs to lead the way in addressing the problems. At the very least, it needs a clear voice in the discussion of these questions.

The Pope calls us to take our place, in other words, just at the moment when history begs us to.

When I speak about developing a new "Christian humanism," this is not an attempt to develop an ideology, still less any kind of political or parliamentary movement. Professor Vera Negri Zamagni, professor at Bologna and wife of Stefano Zamagni, one of the principal thinkers who contributed to Caritas in Veritate, has argued that European Catholics have spent too long focussed on the state and political parties. The same could be said of Catholics here in the UK.

Zamagni says that Catholics need to come together to develop common ideas, rethinking from scratch the application of Catholic social teaching, and to form what she calls a "critical mass," creating forums outside and across parties, and exerting pressure on politics from civil society - in other words, holding state and market to account to civil society.

A step in that direction, then, is Catholic Voices - a zone of friendship, as John Allen puts it, where Catholics of different tendencies - with others outside the Church who can articulate our own tradition sometimes better than we can - come together with the shared purpose of developing common responses to the challenges of our time.

It is a space for bringing to bear the gifts of the Church on major contemporary questions. Over time, if it is fruitful (and it may take years), Catholics disappointed with what is currently on offer from our spent ideologies, whether of left and right - all variants of an exhausted liberalism - can look to a new Catholic humanism for inspiration, and say: "yes, this is what I believe."

That set of beliefs and principles, that habit of thinking, I am calling "Catholic humanism" because it is about criteria for all, for the common good, rather than merely a defence of a minority view.

The term will remind some of you of the phrase "integral humanism" associated with Jacques Maritain and Emmanuel Mounier and others in France in the 1940s, and which would prove so influential on the creation of post-war Christian democracy.

But now, unlike then, the task is not to create democracy but to rescue it. As Pope Benedict recently told the German Parliament:

"The conviction that there is a Creator God is what gave rise to the idea of human rights, the idea of the equality of all people before the law, the recognition of the inviolability of human dignity in every single person and the awareness of people's responsibility for their actions. Our cultural memory is shaped by these rational insights. To ignore it or dismiss it as a thing of the past would be to dismember our culture totally and to rob it of its completeness. The culture of Europe arose from the encounter between Jerusalem, Athens and Rome - from the encounter between Israel's monotheism, the philosophical reason of the Greeks and Roman law. This three-way encounter has shaped the inner identity of Europe. In the awareness of man's responsibility before God and in the acknowledgment of the inviolable dignity of every single human person, it has established criteria of law: it is these criteria that we are called to defend at this moment in our history."

Actions

Share

Comments (75)

tom hankin :

04 Feb 2012 10:34:42pm

Lets look at the so called catholic humanism around the world.Wherever you look in countries that are overwhelmingly catholic,there is extreme poverty living alongside a tiny percentage who are filthy rich. lets use the philippines as an example. 83% of the population are catholic.the bishops have complete control of the politics and the politicians of that country.Witness the on-going refusal of the church to allow any form of birth control in one of the poorest nations in the world with bishops influencing and demanding that legislators bar the passing of a Human Reproductive bill.The population of those islands at present is about 100 million,expected to double in the next 20 years. Eleven million or so Filipina's live and work overseas,sending money back to to their families just to allow food to be put on the table.The bishops of course,living in a large compound,see no evil in this state of affairs, where people around them live in abject poverty.Catholic humanism??

Henry :

29 Mar 2012 4:17:14am

Hmm....let us look at the Protestant British Empire as a contrast to Tom's Phillipine example of scorn for Catholic humanism.

Where shall we look? Africa - take your pick. Perhaps "Rhodesia" with it's violence and dispossession by a mad British billionaire called Cecil and supportive establishment. Or "British" India? What about Australia where setting up a penal colony meant the near extermination of an entire race. The west Indies and the slave trade anyone? What about Ireland or even the violence in setting up protestantism in the "mother" country.

Tom, the truth about the growth of English protestantism is about the history of violence, greed and misery perpetrated by a too clever "superior" race for far too long. Where is/was it's humanism?

Bruce :

28 Oct 2011 12:15:23pm

Christian or Catholic Humanism is simply an oxymoron to anyone who has experienced first hand – and then been able to escape - the miserable degradation of human dignity and cost of cognitive and ratiocinative dysfunction that accompanies faith-based psycholinguistic programs like those developed over the course of more than two millennia by theist and deist doctrine spinners of all stripes (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, The Cult of Mithras in General and the Roman Deus et Deum in general). It is clear to any freethinking individual willing to question authority and risk cognitive dissonance (the stress endured when one’s pragmatically comfortable beliefs are challenged to the point of either revision or elision) that such are designed to achieve power and control for a few by exploiting the masses by way of manipulating basic primal fears and hopes with promises aligned with heaven fictions and threats and psychological blackmail associated with hell and sin fictions. Catholic and Protestant faith commitments both require that FICTIONAL god character is the central focus of all thought and action, and to be deferred to in all things. It is obvious that this fictional character and the narrative accoutrements with which it is furnished are designed by certain kinds of humans to control other humans. Any short term pragmatic benefit to the suspension of disbelief and reason required to ‘embrace the faith’ is seriously outweighed by the devastating damage that theistic memes in full bloom can do. This catholic (and protestant, and Muslim, and Jewish) requirement is godism - not humanism. More specifically it is god-fiction delusivism and dissimulation. Such godism is not commensurate or consistent with any true conception or definition of humanism, especially when history (including contemporary history), reason, logic and the measure of basic empathetic compassion and concern for truth as determined by material fact show - theistic psycholinguistic programs and memes like catholic godism are almost universally pernicious when fully developed. What is humanistic about willfully lying to one's fellow humans to place them in thrall to a delusion for motivations as petty as furthering one's own ends in terms of money and power (just try and deny that the catholic church and protestant monarchs are not the acquirers and holders of enormous material wealth - part of your delusion will make itself plainly apparent)? There is little point - in the light of history and under the light of reason - trying to argue that - pragmatically or otherwise - belief in a god fiction is conducive to achieving a better outcome for human being collectively or individually. Charles Sanders Peirce - the original great American pragmatist philosopher once wrote "Logicality in regard to practical matters...is the most useful quality an animal can possess, and might, therefore, result from the action of natural selection; but outside of th

Holly (Christ lives within) :

30 Oct 2011 3:02:40pm

A logical outlook on life in practical matters can be put to great use.Let us apply some arbitrary logicality to your verse.The ‘wise fool’, an oxymoron of words, yes indeedWhat is to say all you have said is but a collaborative effort of words diametrically opposed in its own self? The elision of intelligent design conveniently disposes of all else that can be said; this cognitive reasoning thus becoming an admission of creative thought.The accoutrements of life born out of natural selection, why then would we strive for the Humanism of the Nature of Christ, the logical acquisition of which would transform EarthWe could go on for a dither and a day, debating the chances of such logicalities in practical matters or model our humanism in the perfection of Jesus Christ or we could all just settle for matters of humanism on the basis of natural selection and randomness of chance.

Hamish :

27 Oct 2011 10:24:15am

"Love thy neighbour" is a fundamental tenant of many religions, not just Christianity, let alone Catholicism. Certainly catholic social teaching elaborates the basic principle well, but many trying to live by such a principle do nit derive it from catholic social teaching. I agree we need to inject basic moral principles into politics much more, but this should not be on the basis of any single church or other religions teachings. Nor should a particular religion try to pressure society to accept its positions. Rather we should act as individuals, informed by our basic moral principles, but, in a civil society, not acting as a religious group,

Justin :

25 Oct 2011 3:23:44pm

The central thesis of this essay is routinely refuted by the time Catholicism had in power in what is referred to as the European Dark Ages (by everyone except the churches). It utterly failed to make any advances socially, scientifically or morally at all. Once the church power was torn away forcefully through the Reformation, Freethinking gradually allowed the Enlightenment. Since then the Catholic Church has been DRAGGED (and continues to be) by secular morality into doing the right thing with a typical catch-up time being 2 generations of priests (ie ~50 years).

To claim this is superior is laughable in the extreme. A church that routinely *protests* again basic Human Rights, has killed in the hundreds of thousands by refusing AIDs infected areas to use condoms, and has a systemic embedded culture of child rape toleration has no claim on morality at all. Secular Morality & Ethics now have total sway, and the church will continue to be immoral in comparison.

Holly (Christ lives within) :

25 Oct 2011 9:12:52pm

A little research on the subject:The most important factor in recent HIV declines observed in countries, such as Kenya, Zimbabwe and Haiti has been an increase in fidelity or "partner reduction." Not surprising, considering that in a large swath of southern Africa, where over half of new infections globally come from, the AIDS epidemic is being driven by the dynamics of multiple and often concurrent sexual partnerships.Where this kind of behaviour change has not taken place, HIV incidence has remained high. This is the case in South Africa, which has been a vigorous promoter of condoms, but rather silent about the need for a more profound modification of behaviour, specifically multiple partnerships. The Catholic Church supports this approach by articulating abstinence and fidelity, in a positive manner. In Africa that there is a real thirst for something different, something hopeful. People yearn for love, respect and for meaning in life. Benedict XVI reminded us that love is characterized by exclusivity, or fidelity, and that love contains a quality of permanence over time. A mother was puzzled as to why such basic themes as fidelity and love are not more routinely promoted in the context of HIV prevention, adding: "Why hasn't anyone explained it like this before?" Commonsense tells us it is time to look at the whole dynamics and not just haphazardly rely on the band-aid affect.

Rhino :

26 Oct 2011 8:07:41am

Holly your arguement sounds susiciously similar to the abstinenace only sex education that moral religious southern USA states love to use. Funny how the highest rates of teenage pregnancy and HIV/AIDS infections occur in these "moral" states.

In fact this arguement is so old and bunk, go back to WW1. The Brits were "moral" and did not issue their soldiers condoms. Result thousands of british casualties due to STIs (called VD back then). In WW2 the brits made sure they had condoms available, result lower transmission rates. Coincidence?

Holly (Christ lives within) :

26 Oct 2011 3:37:22pm

Coincidences or not aside, an encouragement or return of moral values and commitment to single partners is needed and will reduce incidences of sexually transmitted diseases. It's simple logic, unless we really do want to just stick a band-aid over it and keep doing as we please. Haven't we already tried that one? Abstinence is a good recommendation for those already suffering; I don't think we need to bring the USA into it just to drive the obvious home.

James Picone :

26 Oct 2011 6:40:23pm

Expecting people to only have one sexual partner their entire life is, not to put too much of a point on it, delusional. Sure, limiting sexual partners limits potential spread of STIs, but it's utterly unrealistic to treat that as a public health strategy. Condoms, on the other hand, tend to be somewhat more readily accepted.

More to the point, condoms never hurt. So why is it that the Catholic church has been known to outright lie in Africa about their efficacy? Oh right: Medieval ideology over care for actual human lives.

Holly (Christ lives within) :

26 Oct 2011 8:28:45pm

Who said anything about one partner for a life time. Circumstances prevail."Medieval ideology over care for actual human lives"And this knowledge comes from your experiences and contribution in the mission fields I suppose.

Rhino :

26 Oct 2011 9:39:52pm

Holly, I bring the USA experience in because it is a well documented example of how your suggested strategy does not work. Not because its more moral, or that it should work on paper. Because it does not work when compared to contraception.

Contraception works in reality. Therefore, in the realm of public health, we should apply the strategies that work, not the strategies devised by (allegedly) celebate men.

Holly (Christ lives within) :

27 Oct 2011 12:32:28pm

We live in Australia, can we keep to our own concepts and not use USA religion as our model, documented or not.I have not made any statement against contraception or the use of condoms. I have merely introduced the idea of a return to morality overlaid and not forgotten.I don't know any celibate men, can't comment on that one; each to his own lifestyle. Hmm, I think that’s a condom brand. We keep going around in circles, Rhino.

Rhino :

27 Oct 2011 1:57:46pm

I don't mind circles Holly and the USA example is relevant as it is well documented and demonstrated factually that the catholic method is a massive fail. As an aside, the smartest think you can ever do is learn from someone elses mistakes.

Thus to close the circle with the opening premise of the article and lets learn from the mistakes of Catholic humanism, along with other past moral actions and move on.

Holly (Christ lives within) :

27 Oct 2011 4:33:06pm

"The smartest think"I think we are all a little tired today; we get too exhausted to think about it anymore. As if we had all the answers, or they all summed up in a report somewhere with conclusive answers for all. "Let the children play and grow strong, learn from one another, interact. No one has it all right or all wrong. Except for one and most peoples’ minds know where to wander to when identifying the only fully perfect man that has ever existed. I don't even need to say, we need not think too hard to identify the one in whom we can trust for definitive answers.

Holly (Christ lives within) :

27 Oct 2011 5:51:39pm

A little research:Alexander Fleming, who discovered penicillin in 1928, was a simple humble man, he never bothered to patent his discovery for personal profit, and when he was asked to what he attributed his success, he said: ‘I can only suppose that God wanted penicillin, and that this was his reason for creating Alexander Fleming.’ Medical centres, research institutes, and even a moon crater were named in honour of the beloved ‘father’ of penicillin. Alexander Fleming was knighted and called 'Sir Alexander Fleming'. No – humanity did not reject the ‘father’ of penicillin, but it did reject the creator of the world.Thank God for Alexander Fleming.

Holly (Christ lives within) :

Holly (Christ lives within) :

29 Oct 2011 12:22:24pm

If it was God we are in trouble.If it was the Devil we are in even bigger trouble.If germs and bacteria evolve by themselves and kill millions of people Thank God for Alexander Fleming who said: "I can only suppose that God wanted penicillin, and that this was his reason for creating Alexander Fleming.’Due credit to you Lynne; you always open one more door of confirmation.

Paul :

Gillian :

28 Oct 2011 1:34:19pm

And then of course there is the reality that until then, they were using the sulphur/sulfur drugs - and the scientific community is still arguing about who invented them. (The inventor, or the scientists who worked out how to produce them in bulk?)

Chris :

26 Oct 2011 1:13:12am

Human rights discourse grew out of Thomistic natural law ethics! Every proposition in the United Nations' Declaration of Human Rights accords with Catholic moral theology and this is why the Church supported it in Humani Generis.

D Millar :

25 Oct 2011 12:34:12pm

A Catholic humanism, What is meant by this? There was 'the Republic of Letters' that emerged in the Renaissance. Or the Eighteenth Century Enlightenment. The Church's historical response is problematic here. Montaigne, Descartes and Voltaire's works were all on its prohibited list. The Church's attitude to many things hardly allows for such a dialogue with reason and faith, something I am in agreement with the author, we do need. But as in the Renaissance we could do with some 'young Cardinals' who can view faith less cautiously and integrate it wholeheartedly into the social and cultural needs of the modern world. But such a union of 'faith with Aristotle' aka Aquinas, is unlikely to effectively come from the Church in my life time.

Holly (Christ lives within) :

25 Oct 2011 10:59:14pm

'Integrated Humanism', the subject of the futureDon't tell anyone, it might catch on replacing the present dehumanization overtaking the world. "Silence like a cancer grows", it’s true; the world is living in ignorance for no one ‘explained it like this before’It's been an almighty patch up job omitting the healing that was staring us in our faces all the time. (It’s called Grace)

Craig :

24 Oct 2011 1:41:49pm

In a democratic pluralistic society, all are entitled to a voice in the public square. The volume of the voice is proportional to the number of people saying the same thing, but that doesn’t mean that those noisy voices have the right to drown out the others. People of Christian, Islamic, Jewish faith, as well as those who put their faith in the financial markets, or in the size of the military machine, or put their faith in Gaia all have a right to have their voice heard. Time and reason will be the test of the value of their ideas. One worldview that has stood the test of time is the recognition of Jesus as the Christ. At the end of the day, the answer lies in his crucifixion, death, resurrection and ascension. It is in his ministry of care for the marginalised, his love of his Father, and in his challenging of the unjust structures of society that we see a future that is fair and inclusive. In his feeding of the poor, the care for those in need, and in his sacrificial love, he shows us how to be truly human. Why are non-believers so passionate in their non-belief? Is it because they fear that it may actually cost them something?

Rhino :

24 Oct 2011 4:47:15pm

No, Craig, it doesn't cost me anything to not share your belief. Of course, many who share your belief think that it really is so very special and they should receive benefits and hold power over others. Or that only they can help others or minister to students (with government funding of course) etc, etc, etc.

As fpr passion, not letting someone like George Pell or Josef Ratzinger gain power over me and imposing their limited closed minded bigoted morality on me, well that is something I can get passionate about.

Craig :

25 Oct 2011 3:01:05pm

Ingenuous, it's not my place to convince you to share my belief. I'm a former non-believer, and I know that you probably wouldn't be receptive to me pushing the case for belief. But Jesus is at the door, just waiting for you to open it - the handle is on the inside! Faith and science use different languages. It's useless trying to use one to argue for against the other.

Chris :

26 Oct 2011 1:20:20am

Reason? You mean scientific rationalism I presume and not reason as it has been understood in philosophy and theology alike for many centuries. Faith and reason are pretty tightly integrated in Catholicism....and I say that as one who is not Catholic. However you will have to learn these things for yourself.

ingenuous :

I'm not sure how far I'll get here; the moderators in this section are stricter than elsewhere. Anyway...

You are correct that I did not intend the word "reason" to include "theology" of any form. I'll explain what I meant.

Condensing my views to the smallest possible: I can see how philosophy (and even theology) may be useful when speculating about how the world could be or should be or how you'd want it to be, but to determine how the world is right now you have no choice but to use the scientific method.

Propose a theory that may explain some aspect of the world. Construct an experiment that has the potential to prove the theory false. Run the experiment. After many additional experiments without falsification, the theory may, for all normal purposes, be considered proven.

There are refinements to this (e.g. since no theory is 100% proven, all theories are likely to be approximations, as Newton's laws of motion are to Einstein's Relativity), but the scientific method is the way that truth is discovered.

This is what I mean by "reason" and it staggers me that even in the 21st century we must defend this simple concept.

Murray Alfredson :

23 Oct 2011 12:13:46am

Actually, the Catholic Church has a strange history on human rights, very strange, if the origins of the idea stem from the conviction of a creator god.

It is true that modern ideas of political liberty stem from dissenting Christian groups struggling for their own religious freedom. I am not aware of this happening particularly in Catholic circles, but this might simply be because the puritans were more significant in 17th century English history, than were the (much feared) Catholics in that period of religious ill-will.

I am not only unclear what Ivereigh means by 'liberalism' (for example, economic 'liberalism' is to ordinary folk most illiberal). I am also very unclear what he means by 'Christian humanism'. If he refers to the sixteenth century cultural phenomenon of Christians such as Erasmus and John Colet combining a love of classical letters with their Christian faith, and developing an interest in studying the Bible in Greek and Hebrew, along with a personal attitude of moderation and 'sweet reasonableness', I can go along with this spirit. But Erasmian sweet reasonableness is not a quality peculiar to him and his friends, and is also not a quality peculiar to Christians. For me, I will advocate the reasonableness, Christian or otherwise.

Dmillar :

25 Oct 2011 4:00:46pm

I wonder if the kind of culture encouraged by the Republic of Letters would not be a great answer to both modern secularism and a replacement for Catholicism and religion in general. Personally I could see a lot more relevance in studying Cicero, Lucretius, Plato, Aristotle, Marcus Aurelius and Boethius on a Sunday and applying their inquiring questions too our lives than reading from the Bible. Surprises me that it hasn't happened already. If where looking for a cultural richness within the west that isn't dogmatic and can be debated rather than assented to: there it is.

Murray Alfredson :

26 Oct 2011 12:06:57am

Actually, Mr or Ms Millar, the study of the classics of Greece and Rome became rather passe through the 20th century, possibly as part of the advance of the cult of Mammon.

I am not a Christian, and I have done some reading in the literature of ancient Greece and Rome, particularly of Plato and of the Greek tragedians. But I also do consider the Bible a worth-while collection of texts to read. I find much of it quite moving. But then, the rationale for studying the literatures and languages of ancient Greece and Rome can equally be applied to recommending the study of other ancient civilisations, and of modern literatures and languages.

I suppose, though, since the paper we are discussing was about Christian or Catholic humanism, I would point out that the contribution of the great Christian humanists of the past was twofold: in promoting the study of ancient languages, and the study of the Bible in Greek and Hebrew, and publishing these texts in the original languages; and in their values they promoted, possibly in vain considering the religious extremism and violence of the times, values of sweet reasonableness. I repeat, I have not yet discerned what exactly Austen Invereigh means by the term, 'Catholic humanism'.

DMillar :

26 Oct 2011 7:15:29pm

Luther was appalled by the way classical innuendos cropped up in clerical sermons when he visited Rome. It is pure historical fiction, but one wonders what would have happened to the Church had there been no Reformation? Could the Renaissance Republic of Letters at the Papal Court have gradually evolved into a more liberal and truly 'Catholic humanism' within the Church more broadly. Something less ambiguous and problematic than the claims to humanism given here? Certainly the lives of the humanists at the Papal Court, such as Angelo Colocci and Egidio of Viterbo make for intriguing and enriching reading.

Murray Alfredson :

28 Oct 2011 1:10:37am

From my former studies of late mediaeval history, I am inclined to think that some sort of earthquake like the Reformation was bound to happen. The Church in the West was in a horrible mess; there had been stirrings for centuries hitherto, and Rome did nothing. It took the threat of the Reformation to provoke the Counter-Reformation.

You might care to speculate on some might-have-beens. I see scant value in that. As it was, Erasmus made a huge contribution to western Christianity, both Catholic and Protestant, by editing and publishing the Greek New Testament. THat formed the basis for early scholarly translations into the various vernaculars.

Adam T :

22 Oct 2011 9:54:34pm

Perhaps Austen Ivereigh may consider defining what he means by the term 'liberal'?

I'm not convinced by the scattergun use of this phrase throughout this article; the author seems to conflate several senses of the word 'liberal', with no great effect other than confusion. It would be a mistake to regard neo-liberalism, secularism, humanism and libertarianism as the same creature; these are widely different philosophies with diverse concerns about economics, personal freedom and morality. I sense that the author is railing against neo-liberal economics, while attempting to conflate those ideas with progressive personal freedoms and the, 'secular project'.

Secularism is a guarantee that religious folk may enjoy religious freedom, and as such, no religious person should have a problem with it, unless they wish to marginalise the religious freedoms of others, or unless they believe the state owes them special favours, or unless they have a sense that secularism has become overweening.

Austen Ivereigh writes:

>>In what is the most widely-quoted part of his Westminster Hall speech, Pope Benedict described the benefits of political thought and faith entering into dialogue - benefits not just for reason, but also for faith.

"This is why I would suggest that the world of reason and the world of faith - the world of secular rationality and the world of religious belief - need one another and should not be afraid to enter into a profound and ongoing dialogue, for the good of our civilisation."

This fruitful exchange - which is the direct opposite, of course, of the secularist ambition of excluding or privatising faith as an individual matter of personal belief - is the best way, the only way, of overcoming the temptations to sectarianism and fundamentalism, whether of religion or of political creeds; and it is the foundation of authentic pluralism.<<

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of secularism. I’m not sure what ‘other way’ the author is imagining here, but as far as I am aware, there are no barriers between those people of faith communicating with the wider, ‘atheist/agnostic/ignostic’ spectrum in the UK. Free speech is just that. Given that members of the Church of England sit, unelected, in the house of Lords, I would suggest that the author should be requesting a more vigorous and consistent secularism for the United Kingdom. The point of secularism is that no particular religion should have privileged access to the levers of power. Is the author suggesting that this is a mistake? Get rid of secularism and you are on the fast track to sectarianism and fundamentalism.Again, it comes down to a confusion and conflation of terms which is just not useful. Secularism is conflated with humanism which is conflated with liberalism (in several senses) and the end result is that I don’t quite understand what the author is writing about. Perhaps there

Adam T :

23 Oct 2011 7:01:05am

Here is the rest of my comment:

Perhaps there is a general dissatisfaction of the author with the modern western democracies and crony capitalism? Yes I share that too, but I’d rather get into the meat of the matter than producing a vague PR piece for Christianity brand X.

Neo-liberal economics has failed us. The political parties have failed us. Consumerism and materialism have eroded other values; we have all become commodities. Our personal freedoms have not grown, they have shrunk; we maintain a ridiculous, anti-reason war against drugs, we support overbearing anti-terror legislation that reduces personal freedom. We have troops deployed in Afghanistan, for God’s sake. We argue about the carbon tax and boat people.

Is Jesus relevant? Yes he is, yet as Christians, we have a duty to articulate just how that is so.

jusme :

22 Oct 2011 10:47:04am

wow, i think that's the 1st time i've heard anyone so linked to ANY religious body suggest 'your team' may be on the wrong track. 'lost it's way' in politico-speak.i liked lots of the rest too, but i disagree that liberalism is at any kind of end. or hope it isn't. imo it's got great points in less red tape, efficiently run (*aussily)government, and i dunno if keynes was a liberal as i understand it but that makes sense too.anyway, you've pointed out lots of simple paths christians/greens/liberals could easily walk. ta.

IB :

21 Oct 2011 11:26:28pm

Once again we have people claiming that their Christianity is the source of all good. The truth is good has been fought for and achieved despite Christianity or any other religion. At the risk of repeating myself. Human laws arise from symmetry principles just like the laws of physics. Equality of mankind is just a symmetry principle. It was always there, but the Christians had no trouble breaking it by having slavery or apartheid. They had no trouble killing people of different religions over hundreds of years, with antisemitism just the latest example. Even today religions don't pay taxes because they want to be different from everyone else. As reason becomes overwhelming finally even the religious start to see equality of mankind irrespective of their religion, race, nationality and even gender (rarely that one). Rather ironic then to claim the concept for themselves.

badgernrosie :

21 Oct 2011 4:12:28pm

I just thought that I ought to add that those who truly love power should kiss whatever or whoever leads their particular form of doctrinal organization and those who truly love money or wealth primarily should kiss their money or wealth, I bet neither the the money, wealth or leader of the doctrinal organization returns their kisses. Not unless there is some hope of more money, wealth or power.

jizo :

21 Oct 2011 3:28:23pm

Both secular and humanist views avoid having dominion. The Catholics sitting in the UK, like to think it's the same in Australia, just upside down. But they havent really realized what upside down is yet. The Pope's recent visit to Germany, one would suppose, recognized this when he avoided talking about the differences of the church between the Catholics and the Lutherans. In the UK, his humanist approach talks, in Australia it doesnt really hold, the significant indulgences the Lutherans approached come to mind why that is.(So as an aside, would that be why MaryMcKillop was given sainthood recently, or was that the Spirit at work, one would wonder, I guess.)So secularism is what talks in Australia; upside down. But what really talks is Christ, and where I pray the dialogue leads, because humanist talk which is really just political talk, that is 'the seekers', is only political. Indigenous talk, is also political, with a tag of humanist. Until the dialogue gets to Christ....well we arent talkin' then are we.

badgernrosie :

21 Oct 2011 4:51:20pm

I wonder Jizo do you understand why ancient religious texts were written or how they worked? If you told the Sanhedrin that you were the son of god you'd then be sent to hang around with all your other brothers. The reply that they wanted was that you were a Hebrew and that you would like to be married. Why was this, well if your primary desire was to be a Hebrew then you could be trusted at least somewhat, and if you also wanted to be married then there would be more initiates. You gotta remember that back then contraception did not exist and even if a man could trick everybody into believing that he was not the father of a new born child this was not an option for the new mum. How about a new religious question with the required answer being that whether man or woman you were a human being and that you wanted the true and lasting love of a partner. Thanks to modern science we have both reliable contraception and D.N.A. testing so their should be no doubt as to who is the mother or father and I don't believe that we should punish either of the parents for their response to their instincts, but I do believe both mum and dad should contribute at least financially to any new child's upbringing as a new born child did not create himself but his parents who did have an obligation to the newborn child, the rest of we humans and the creator of the universe.

badgernrosie :

21 Oct 2011 2:22:52pm

I think that we humans should use our sciences to teach the new and growing generations how our human perception operates. We as individuals see, think and talk with our mental perception. Most of our understanding though is created by a combination of how we as individuals perceive the reality that we live in so what we see, think and talk of is related to how the "outside world" makes us feel both as what we as individuals sense and have emotional understandings of. What we should do is help the new generations to realize if greed for instance is operated over time this will cause a new political movement to form that has in the past created National Socialism and Soviet Socialism to give an example of twentieth century troubles caused by greed and the thirst for control and power over other's. The ancient religious texts were created by our ancestors as we as people moved into the present time and a lot of writers, wrote to help inform the leaders or their time what caused the masses to rebel. If Carl Marks had lived in a fairly free and civil society, one that helped its people to have enough adequate food, shelter and clothing then he would have wondered what it was possible to write about in his time. To promote writings of two thousand years ago as though we lived back then would not be as good as teaching how and why those writings were written back then as well as informing the students that as people of the twenty first century we need to take advantage of the knowledge's and sciences that we people have now so that there would be no need to witness hunger and poverty on the monumental scale that we witness now with our large and growing communication technology. I think that we at present cannot eliminate droughts, floods or fires but it would be much better if we as people we able to witness how quickly we were able to help resolve such natural disasters. I also think that there is a creator but I think that the creator has created a planet that has allowed us as individuals to evolve just as how the creator evolved out of a pure vacuum.

Holly (Christ lives within) :

21 Oct 2011 9:34:28am

Secularism, Liberalism is running helter skelter on the defensive at every turn. This only pronounces the fate of imminent retreat; leaving an ever widening space for The Unified Church of "Catholic humanism" to lead into the future as evidenced by “Pope Benedict XVI's most emphatic invitations during his historic visit to the UK last year." and by ever increasing boldness in steps forward; gently caused in Divine Encouragement by the Creator of All Humanity.“Since this new way gives us such confidence, we can be very bold. We are not like Moses who put a veil over his face...”2 Corinthians 3:12

casewithscience :

21 Oct 2011 1:13:33pm

"Secularism, Liberalism is running helter skelter on the defensive at every turn"

So its a battle is it Holly? A competition between religion, secularism and liberalism. Funny, most liberals and secular people don't consider it as such. We are just trying to get the best system to satisfy everyone and so that they can freely worship or practice as they wish.

Then again, as religion is a stone age conception, I guess we should have expected as such from its proponents.

Holly (Christ lives within) :

21 Oct 2011 5:01:16pm

Dear CaseforScienceOne could say it is a battle. Your aim is the same as our Stone Age conception, all for one, one for all, a battle with a difference with the proponents now taking their places. We are all free to choose who we would like to lead us into battle, simple as that.

jaycee :

23 Oct 2011 4:55:37pm

Alright, Let's have a bit of fun with the concept of a real "God"..Let us say; God exists, for if he did not exist, Humanity would not have a god to believe in, ergo: God exists for Humanity to believe in him..He therefore exists for a rational reason...BUT; if God exists to fulfil a reason, he exists as a servant to a purpose;ie. for humanity to have a belief. If god serves a purpose, he is a servant of that purpose..if he is a servant, he is not a master! ergo he is not omnipotent!..conclusion : He is not a God!

Holly (Christ lives within) :

23 Oct 2011 9:10:02pm

Jaycee, there you go again with your God concepts. Your points get a little out of control as they build from one irrational point to the next. A little like a freight train hurtling out of control.If God does exist, He would be wondering what on earth you are on about.

jaycee :

Holly (Christ lives within) :

24 Oct 2011 1:39:59pm

In summary God is an omnipotent (invincible all powerful) force capable of looking into our futures foreseeing our needs and "purposes our days before us". There's that repeating resounding message again. I think God did that on purpose.

Holly (Christ lives within) :

24 Oct 2011 1:30:40pm

I am trying really hard to stick to the point.I got distracted by the ants. Let's see:Point No 1 "If he did not exist, humanity would not have a god to believe in, ergo." AgreedPoint No 2 "He therefore exists for a rational reason" AgreedPoint No 3 "If God serves a purpose; God exists as a servant to that purpose" I think God would wholeheartedly agree at this point as He sent Jesus Christ into the world to teach us to be servants unto our fellow man. Conclusion:He foresaw the needs of the world and sent Christ to fulfil a purpose through us, ergo, he in most assuredly omnipotent!Got any other points?

jaycee :

24 Oct 2011 5:31:21pm

You nearly got there, Holly, but your "belief" got the better of you! If you could just go to the next logical point after no.3...you would find yourself in open waters and with a firm breeze! Trouble is, it is at this point where all the faithfull fall. One cannot go where instruction forbids! Enjoy your belief.

Holly (Christ lives within) :

24 Oct 2011 6:31:46pm

I got to the 'open waters and cool breeze' and broke out in joyful laughter.Clear sailing here on in, it just doesn't get any better, God comes through every time without fail. Logical point after No 3: God proved His Point beyond a shadow of a doubt. This is the best one so far and you served your purpose well in the tuition process and there was a peal of Angels rejoicing in the Heavens above.No more points need be made. I think God is even well pleased with this Endeavour. The Glory be to God.

casewithscience :

24 Oct 2011 1:45:09pm

Holly,

I do not see it as a battle, rather, I see it as a mutual enquiry into truth. The only reason there is argument is because one side (ie the theists) deride and attack the conclusions reached by the other (such as in relation to evolution, age of the earth, archaeological evidence against the biblical narrative). Accordingly, I see no battle here.

Holly (Christ lives within) :

24 Oct 2011 3:18:33pm

I do not see it as a battle with other humans either; “battle” was the terminology you wished to employ in your comment, in response I said "One could say it is a battle...with a difference" The battle is not with one another, it is an internal battle with our own self defeating purposes and desires. We take our lead in that direction from the demonstration of Christ and once again there is no other put forward to whom we can turn as an example by which we live other than a self made style of morality. The state of the world would tell us most of us, excluding yourself before you object, are not being lead in the right direction.We need an absolute moral standard to which we can aspire.

Gigaboomer ®:

22 Oct 2011 8:19:55pm

Case it is a battle, a battle between truth claims or worldviews. Weather you like it or not humanism is just as much a truth claim (read religion) as Christianity but claims very different truths. They can't all be right.

Murray Alfredson :

Holly (Christ lives within) :

23 Oct 2011 4:54:00pm

Murray, there is one pure logical truth. All else are distortions and variations of the truth searching for truth; some closer to the ultimate destiny of truth than others. It is a journey to which we are all assigned, but there is only one ultimate destination, and truth tells us it is not the finality of death.Holly has a long and chequered history, as do we all in all truth.(Had to tell the truth, it really is the best policy in the ultimate scheme of things)

Holly (Christ lives within) :

25 Oct 2011 7:47:57pm

Logic (Common Sense) tells us/determines that something is not true. I use this common sense to determine that what I perceive is true. I don't just accept any old religion, only that which demonstrates truth.Anyone who knows me would tell you commonsense is part of my identity structure, organizes my thinking, and brings my endeavours to fruition. Drive, I think they call it.Logic is a most vital part of any process if not the key element. Haven’t got a clue what you said though, it was completely illogical in structure."There is no obligation on a person to find truth" is that what we teach our kids.

Holly (Christ lives within) :

23 Oct 2011 5:19:35pm

The “gulf of understanding” described between scholars in the sciences and humanities appear to have grown ever larger.By highlighting areas of common intellectual ground, we preserve respect for one another's points of view; the perceived dimensions of the elephant in the room based on an individual's acquired knowledge at that point in time, not necessarily the entire truth, but from a learner's point of view a worthwhile pursuit in arriving at truth; A common goal in the search for truth evident in the process.Good point, Murray, if I have perceived the parable of the Blind men and the Elephant correctly?

Holly (Christ lives within) :

24 Oct 2011 6:16:59pm

Gigaboomer “A battle of truth claims”, this is an excellent way of looking at it. Truth always wins out, so no one need fear putting their case forward. We all have a claim to truth and eventually will arrive at this point making the journey a battle of wills. What did case say," I see it as a mutual enquiry into truth" or we could call it an impassioned discourse just to make it as little more intriguing.

AC :

21 Oct 2011 1:29:10pm

Secularism is only growing; not running helter skelter at all. Look up the story of the American Cancer Society rejecting a donation of $500,000 because it came from a non religious source! Those are lives that could have been saved with that money and saving lives should always come ahead of PR or discriminating because you don't like the idea of non religious people being charitable as well.

If you want to claim any morality then you have to be moral. Save lives that need saving, regardless of who they are, don't discriminate based on sexuality and don't claim that you're superior and that anyone who doesn't believe exactly as you do will burn and don't claim that it's right for them to burn. Simply using the word "Catholic" doesn't cut it. You have to start being a decent human being or the rest of us won't call you one.

badgernrosie :

22 Oct 2011 8:38:42am

I don't know Holly do you understand that we humans are individual people? You do know what I mean I hope? As an individual you should promote the realization that you yourself exist here on planet Earth because of the result of your mother and father following the instinctive response to each other that we humans have evolved with. I think that instead of promoting ancient religious texts you should understand that the more that you learn and understand the more that you can learn and understand. How about promoting a true Love and Like of the planet on which we exist, all living things on this planet, true care and concern for everyone in the species of human beings and if we could get the scientific types to acknowledge that a universe that creates itself out of a pure vacuum must also be an evolving life-form, its just that this evolving life form is and only could be the first form of life to exist!

Holly (Christ lives within) :

22 Oct 2011 9:32:50pm

BadgernrosieYou are a one off that is for sure.You may even be living in completely the wrong era.I know that you are in serious earnest with all that you say, and this is appealing in many ways.But I am also in serious earnest in knowledge of the universal powers that be, I participate in them fervently as do you, but in my case the ancient text is in no way out dated it is more applicable that ever before.The beauty of the scriptures transcends time; the fragrance still speaks of a morality that we should all adopt. My mum and dad followed all the instinctive responses and winded up with 7 kids. Among the very last words my Mum had for my Dad before she passed away were "Which one would we have given up" in response to my Dad's question: “Why did we have so many kids"Indeed which one would they have given up; I for one am glad it wasn't me. The Bible is all about the launching of individual destiny and dreams, the empowerment of visions in men and women, it speaks of nothing else. Love is the key factor in the fulfilment of a life that is rich and productive and moral if we must use this word. Christ is the embodiment of this Divine Love and Power, there is no other to speak of. Many have discovered this empowerment and run for all they are worth in changing the vision of the world. For those who do not know of Christ's Love for us, it is time to wake up and smell the fragrance in the air, it did not evolve by mere chance. I know you have a good heart Badgernrosie, but you are a little off the track.All the best on your journey in life; this probably won't get posted it is too long and says too much.Holly (fired up tonight, God just redecorated my study, just kidding.

jaycee :

23 Oct 2011 6:58:42pm

Holly, the fundamental failing of the religious fundamentalist, is their mistaken concept of a God. A case of not seeing the forest for the trees. One needs to be an athiest to appreciate the hunger for the need of the god. The capacity of the human mind to reason and plot and therefore to concieve and "prove" concepts imagined, require a capacity that even the constructed God of our religions does not have..The capacity to Dream. If the God of our teachings were capable of dreaming, he would have no need for creation! next time you are in the garden(in the interests of posting brevity)go down on your bended knees(a not unusual posture, I'd surmise!)and examine the smallest ant as it goes about its' chores completely unconcerned or unaware of your studied observation..you will see a creature, as alive as you and me, totally engrossed in an ureasoned, unthinking yet totally necessary job and there you are observing its movements, its intention, its' load of produce...and from that observation you will conclude its' ambition. Sort of like we, as humans have constructed, from firstly,the point of an end to the point of the beginning,(in that reverse order) the concept of creation..the need for a godhead to facillitate that construction and therefore "prove" that conception.

Holly (Christ lives within) :

23 Oct 2011 8:57:43pm

JayceeThe fundamentalist ant, interesting analogy, has no need of a God, somewhat like the atheist fundamentalist. Their ability to conceive of one is deemed unnecessary to their capacity to dream. So reversing the point of this pointless analogy, from beginning to end, leaves us with a Godless world; jeepers creepers your right.Let’s see, I’ve never been accused of being a fundamentalist before, I thought that sort of analogy was reserved for extremists pushing their point a little over the edge. I merely said wake up and smell the flowers.A little extreme perhaps, but nevertheless delightful.

8 :

21 Oct 2011 6:55:55am

Many catholics now insist secularism has resulted in "more damage" than have religious based societies (and usually include all Abrahamic faiths) So prove it. While we might agree secularism does result in damage (say the bolsheviks treatment of the orthodox)--any sort of empirical assessment would be rather difficult if not impossible. In America the Founders such as Jeff. may have been secularist, but the vast majority of citizens weren't. Ie the average southerner was a biblethumper, even in Jefferson's day. Jefferson had issues but not personally responsible for slavery.

What of say the muslims treatment of hindus in Pakistan circa 72 or so (obvious but rarely discussed)

Finally read many of the religious writers around blogland. While one can understand some opposition to the likes of Dawkins, et al it's hardly evident that Kotzko-like xtian leftists or little calvinists such as Ben Myers or the catholic writers opposed to abortion offer some great moral vision superior to...secular rational views (say Rawls, or the US-Con). Just chanting Hegel doesn't really suffice (who supported the French Rev. anyway) What they have is..."keepin' the byatch runnin" (ie Christendom). A lot of shekels depend on that.

On the Wider Web

The violence, and responses to it, have raised a slew of questions. Is it helpful, or even accurate, to characterize these killings as religiously motivated? How have the attack and responses to it helped to construct or entrench the identities said to be in conflict? Should the events be understood in the context of France's history of satire or its history of colonialism? Can the two be separated in this case? What is the significance of the willingness of many not only to affirm free expression, but also to identify themselves with the magazine? Are there limits to the freedom of expression?

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. The Islamic State awaits the army of "Rome," whose defeat at Dabiq, Syria, will initiate the countdown to the apocalypse.

Best of abc.net.au

Shaping from the soul

For Murray 'Muzza' Bourton, surfing is a 'drug' and surfboard shaping is a lifestyle.

Subscribe

How Does this Site Work?

This site is where you will find ABC stories, interviews and videos on the subject of Religion & Ethics. As you browse through the site, the links you follow will take you to stories as they appeared in their original context, whether from ABC News, a TV program or a radio interview. Please enjoy.